That date approaches yet again.
Next Tuesday is Nov. 22, the 48th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Brace yourself for Zapruder images that surely horrify and still mystify.
And now add the name of author Stephen King to those who are weighing in on the ghastly events of that tragic day in Dallas. King’s latest book, 11/22/63, is a
time-travel novel that posits what would have happened had Kennedy not been murdered. If the assassin had been interdicted by the time traveler.
No, I haven’t read it yet, but it’s been well received by reviewers–for its vintage King dark fantasy and page-turning suspense as well as for his research. Especially into the background of Lee Harvey Oswald. In a recent interview on CNBC’s Hardball With Chris Matthews, King made it clear that he agreed with the assessment that Oswald was a Communist-sympathizing loser seeking historic notoriety. Yes, Oswald did it.
While “The Wayback Machine” novel may be captivating reading, it would appear the research on Oswald is way off.
Warren Commission
I’ve used this forum before to reiterate the case that the Warren Commission’s charge was to cherry pick witnesses, customize testimony and select evidence to support the Oswald-as-lone-assassin thesis. Its motivation, however, was not dark conspiracy–but national security.
If you have more than three shots and, thus, more than one shooter–and your prime suspect once defected to the Soviet Union–well, who knows, conspiratorially speaking, where this will ultimately lead?
The year before, the world dodged a nuclear bullet over Soviet missiles in Cuba. Thus, the Warren Commission mandate: Just let it be. A lone, uneducated, egomaniacal nut killed the president. Three shots, one shooter, no doubts. Let posterity, if there is one, worry about inconvenient truths and declassified details.
Now is not the time to revisit this subject in depth, but for King and others, including Matthews, to characterize Oswald as little more than a stereotypical loser-loner out to make horrific history is a gross oversimplification of who Oswald was.
Oswald Context
The 24-year-old Oswald was almost assuredly a government operative, albeit one who didn’t know where he fit in America’s internecine, Cold War tool box. Hence, that haunting “patsy” reference after his arrest and before his execution.
Consider just a few, basic biographical facts:
* While in the Marines, Oswald was assigned toAtsugi (Japan), the U-2 spy base. As in Gary Powers flights. As in strict security clearance.
* He was sent to foreign language school where he learned Russian, which he would speak–and write–well.
* He would become a “defector” to–and then a “re-defector” from–the Soviet Union. Such scenarios were not unheard of during the height of the Cold War’s geopolitical paranoia and spy vs. spy preoccupation.
* Oswald was, inexplicably enough, known to be involved with both anti-Castro exiles in Louisiana as well as the pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committee. As for the latter, he was the one and only FPCC “member” in the New Orleans “branch.” In intelligence circles, such blatant imposters are known as “dangles”–would-be bait to the other side.
And much more, too numerous to mention here.
Put it this way. Lee Harvey Oswald was no John Hinckley, Squeaky Fromme or Arthur Bremer.
Museum Missing Person
When I visited the (22-year-old) Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza in Dallas this summer, I broached the subject of Oswald with Pauline Martin, the Museum’s librarian/archivist. My query was prompted by the glaring absence of even a biographical sketch of Oswald amid the museum exhibits. He didn’t get the John Wilkes Booth treatment, yet his name is synonymous with the crime of the century. It begs context.
Martin acknowledged that the curators and “interpretation team” were aware “how pertinent that missing piece of (Oswald) information is to the exhibit.” But it wasn’t some blatant oversight, she emphasized.
The original exhibit designers and curator omitted information about Oswald intentionally for the sake of “sensitivity” to the locals, said Martin. A majority had lived through Dallas’ day of infamy, she pointed out, and were “opposed to establishing a museum about the assassination of a beloved president.”
But that could change.
“Now as we are approaching the 50th anniversary, more and more people view the tragic event as history, not a memory,” she noted.
As for 11/22/63, I’m sure it’s still a compelling read. It is, after all, a Stephen King novel.